On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:31 AM, t.p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I oppose publication of this I-D by the IETF.
The point has already been that better defences against monitoring
likely means greater use of encryption and encryption is at times
harmful. Two examples come immediately to mind.
Not long ago, a capital city was subject to riots which were more
extensive, and went on for longer, than might have been expected.
Afterwards, the police explained that they had lacked the intelligence
that they usually had, that the organisers of the riots had been using
encryption to communicate and that the police had been unable to crack
their messages. (I understand that the manufacturers of the devices in
question had declined to help the civil power). And yes, that capital
city is where the IETF will meet next March. (The probabliity of you
being caught up in a riot then is very small but if you are, recall that
encryption has made it worse).
We have had riots in Broadwater Farm three out of the last four periods of Conservative government. Should we ban Conservative governments then?
The 1985 riots predate general UK internet availability and cellular phone service. So there is an existence proof for the possibility of London riots before the Internet.
The battle of Cable Street in 1936 was instrumental in suppressing fascism in the UK and led to the forced abdication of the King.
Moreover, the fatality rate suggests that the risk of being murdered in London during a riot is actually less than the risk of being murdered in most US cities under normal circumstances.
In contrast the proponents of mass surveillance were recently responsible for starting a war that caused the death of over half a million people.
If the US bans all firearms then we can talk about encryption control. Until that happens they have no credibility on the subject of public order.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/